Yep. Disgusting.
So here goes Puti for you !
Want him shirtless... ?
No. Let China handle it.
If eastern Ukraine secedes, is NATO going to employ troops to keep the country together by force?
Russia wouldn’t go in unless NATO did so first and I don’t see that happening.
The Ukrainian crisis has to be solved by Ukrainians themselves.
Fine. Make sure they are Czech, sugar.
Offer your own troops, bucko....
Yes, the Czechs know so much less than you do about Russian cruelty and aggression. You are a genius.
Ukraine isn’t in NATO. Insane that Americans should be refighting WWII Battles against the Russian Army, on the same battlefields where they fought Nazis.
Lunacy
With regard to "Russian troops entering Ukraine," I am sure that nothing of the sort will happen; not at first, at least. Putin have seen how this game is played, and he even played a round himself, in Crimea. First you make sure that a sufficient part of the population supports you. Then you have a referendum. Then the territory is ready to be collected. Only after that the troops may officially appear; but it will be too late.
NATO would have to be insane to intervene. Putin may order a tactical nuclear strike, a sub-kiloton one, just to put NATO on notice, if necessary. But it will not be necessary. His troops can inflict an unacceptable damage on NATO troops without even leaving their bases. The USA have made the MOAB, but Russia have made the FOAB. NATO is very sensitive to loss of life among their soldiers. Russians, on the other hand, would be attacked on "their land" (of Russia or of Ukraine - does not matter.)
I cannot say that NATO is above and beyond using force against countries that are not involved with NATO members. Yugoslavia and Libya are examples of that. However those were expendable and certified weaklings, and there was no boots on the ground (outside of a few special forces.)
Most of all, use of force is triggered by political needs. There was, arguably, some need (however contrived) to engage Yugoslavia and Libya. There was little risk. But I don't see at this time what can be gained from traveling 2,000 miles to the East and engaging Russians on their border. The parallels with the World War II would be extremely appropriate - especially considering that Stalin haven't been sitting idly at the Polish border either, after having signed the secret treaty with Germany, and fresh from the Winter War with Finland.
So what is likely? I'd say further instability is likely in Eastern Ukraine. If it culminates in autonomy of those regions then you can write them off - they will be eventually Russian, and NATO can't do a thing about it because no troops will be involved. NATO cannot fight popular sentiments. But I can't see how Kiev can allow that autonomy to happen. First, Kiev had been given a lesson already, and they had to learn at least something from that lesson. Second, Kiev can deploy and use Ukrainian troops in those regions. Third, those troops would be from Western Ukraine - they will not change sides as readily as it was done in Crimea. Fourth, there are no natural borders around the disputed lands (they were in Crimea.) There are other steps to take. The only weakness in Kiev's position that I can see now is that Ukraine is poor, and it is doomed to become poorer. Kiev may simply have no money to send to the East - and without money from Kiev the residents will gladly take the money from Moscow. As the proverb says, "A donkey loaded with gold will take a city that a ten thousand strong army will not." Russia has gold; Obama have sent some already, via Kiev, and he will send more :-)
The Czechs want a war with Russia? They can lead the way! We can be the ones to send rear-echelon support for a change!
The Velvet Divorce between Czech and Slovak may actually be a peaceful model for Ukraine. However, I would get more upset if Russia tries to take over west Ukraine, or the Baltics. That to me is the real problem.
Exactly. I hate NATO since Serbia.